But even upon the merits of the case my Reviewers are ready to join issue. I am accused of the grossest ignorance of the facts involved in the discussion. The _Record_, refraining with an unwonted tenderness from the imputation of a more corrupt motive, or unwilling to expend upon a less formidable enemy any portion of that artillery which must be reserved entire for the devoted head of Mr. Rowland Hill, is contented to represent me as “a respectable man, occupied for the last three months in reading nothing but the _Times_,” and an instructive example of the pernicious influence of its “suppressions.” {16} Now, if the burden of this charge is a preference of the _Times_ to the _Record_ as a channel of political information, I must plead guilty. But, if it be intended, as the context implies, that I borrowed from that or any other Newspaper the statements of facts contained in my Letter, I can only reply that the charge is false. Not one assertion is there made, which was not obtained by explicit information from what every candid enquirer would regard as the most authentic source. I do not for one moment hesitate to confess that I regard an official Government return as better evidence on a question of fact than the irresponsible publications of a “Lord’s Day Society.” If the latter informs me that “the new Sabbath labour already employs a considerably larger number of men on the Sabbath than was professed by Mr. Hill’s Minute;” and if I learn from what I must regard as higher authority that the amount of extra-work to be done on Sundays in the London Office will, in all probability, be very shortly reduced to the employment of _six_ persons, and may ultimately be accomplished even without _any_ such addition, nay, with an actual _diminution_ of the original number; while, at the same time, more than one hundred and ninety persons, who have hitherto performed regular work on Sundays, are set entirely free, within the London District itself; can I hesitate which to follow?